46 Ky. 298 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1847
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action against a Sheriff on his official bond, and the breach mainly relied upon is, that having an execution in his hands in favor of the relator, he failed, to make a sufficient levy.
It is no doubt the duty of an officer in levying, to take property enough, if to be had, to satisfy the execution in his hands. It is not admitted, however, that the discharge of this duty requires him, at his peril, to seize on property to an extent sufficient, when it is disposed of by public sale, to raise, in any event, a sum sufficient for this-purpose. In the performance of this duty he must exercise a prudent, reasonable and cautious discretion. If he fail to do this it is a violation of his duty. He is, in this respect, to be governed by the rules which influence the conduct of discreet and prudent men in the management of their own affairs. He must take into his possession an amount of property, sufficient when sold, in all reasonable probability, making a proper allowance for the sacrifice usually incident to officers sales, to bring a sum that will pay off the execution in his hands. But he may be liable on the other hand, to the defendant in the execution, if he make an excessive levy. He is, therefore, to perform his duty as Sheriff, having an eye to the security of the plaintiff’s debt, and avoiding all acts of oppression towards the defendant.
Testing the conduct of the Sheriff in this case by this-standard, we aie inclined to the opinion that the levy made by him should be deemed insufficient.
The injury, however, which the plaintiff in the execution sustains by the official delinquency of the officer in its management, determines the extent of the officer’s
Admitting, therefore, the levy to have been insufficient, and the subsequent conduct of the Sheriff indisposing of the property to have been improper and illegal, we are not able to say that the Court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial; it not appearing that the verdict which he obtained, was inadequate to meet the full extent of the injury which he sustained.
Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.